WRITTEN BY BISHOP DR JOSEPH IGHALO-EDORO
Diplomacy is often perceived as a theatre of ceremony, polished receptions, the presentation of credentials, and the quiet exchange of courtesies between states. Beneath that polished surface, however, lies a far more delicate process. Before any ambassador arrives in a foreign capital, the receiving country must grant what international diplomatic practice describes as agrément, the formal consent that allows a nominee to represent his or her nation. Without that consent the appointment simply does not take effect. The principle is clearly established in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which grants every sovereign state the right to accept or reject a diplomatic nominee without providing an explanation. This quiet power, rarely discussed outside diplomatic circles, functions as one of the most important safeguards in international relations.
The purpose of agrément is not hostility but compatibility. A host nation must be confident that the individual proposed as ambassador will operate within the political culture, historical sensitivities, and strategic interests of the receiving state. Diplomacy requires trust, moderation of language, and a recognition that ambassadors serve not only their own governments but also the stability of bilateral relations. When a nominee’s previous public statements or political posture appear likely to create friction, governments sometimes exercise the option of withholding consent.
History offers numerous examples of this restrained but decisive practice. Governments across the world have occasionally declined diplomatic nominees when concerns arise about political conduct, ideological rhetoric, or national security implications. In 2016 the government of Germany reportedly declined to grant agrément to a proposed ambassador from North Korea amid broader concerns surrounding sanctions enforcement and the activities associated with North Korean diplomatic missions in Europe. The decision effectively prevented the nominee from assuming the post in Berlin. The incident illustrated that even in an age of global diplomacy, states remain vigilant about the profiles of those who seek to represent foreign governments within their borders.
The practice is not limited to Europe. Across continents host nations have occasionally withheld acceptance for nominees when political sensitivities or diplomatic temperament raised concerns. In 2013 the government of Tanzania declined to grant consent for a German ambassadorial nominee correspondingly, a reminder that the principle of agrément functions equally for both powerful and developing states. Such decisions rarely become prolonged disputes because diplomatic convention recognizes the sovereign right of a host country to ensure that a foreign envoy can function constructively within its political environment.
In 1984 a military envoy from Nigeria to the United States of America was rejected based on the Vienna Convention on International Relations.
These precedents reflect a broader reality within international relations. Diplomacy is deeply shaped by historical memory. Few countries illustrate this more clearly than Germany. The moral legacy of the The Holocaust continues to influence the ethical framework of German foreign policy, particularly in matters relating to the legitimacy and security of Israel. Since the end of the World War II successive German leaders, including Angela Merkel and Olaf Scholz, have articulated the view that Israel’s security forms part of Germany’s enduring state responsibility. This historical commitment shapes the diplomatic climate in which foreign representatives operate in Berlin.
In such contexts the public record of a diplomatic nominee can become an important consideration. Statements made in political debates, commentaries, or public discourse may be examined not to silence opinion but to determine whether an ambassador will be able to function effectively within the sensitivities of the receiving country. In Europe particularly, rhetoric that appears to delegitimize Israel or promote conspiratorial narratives about its global role often attracts scrutiny because similar narratives historically accompanied antisemitic propaganda in the twentieth century.
For that reason analysts sometimes note that any diplomatic nominee whose public record contains severe denunciations of Israel, or allegations linking the state to international conspiracies or extremist movements, might encounter difficulty in gaining acceptance in Berlin. Likewise, the United States, Israel, India, Iran or any other Nations. Iran, may never accept a nominee who had been pro Israel with utterances and conducts inimical to the ideology of Iran.
The concern would not necessarily arise from ordinary political criticism, which remains part of democratic discourse, but from language that appears to portray Israel as fundamentally illegitimate or criminal in nature. Given Germany’s historical commitments and domestic political climate, such rhetoric could generate public controversy and parliamentary debate should the individual be nominated for a diplomatic posting.
Diplomacy ultimately depends on restraint of language as much as on clarity of policy.
Ambassadors must cultivate confidence, reduce tensions, and represent their countries with a degree of moderation that allows dialogue to flourish even where disagreements exist. When governments evaluate diplomatic nominees they therefore consider not only professional qualifications but also the tone and character of their public engagement. A host nation must ask whether the nominee’s record will facilitate cooperation or introduce avoidable strains into bilateral relations.
Seen in this broader context, the practice of declining a diplomatic nominee should not be interpreted as hostility toward the sending state. Rather it reflects a routine instrument of international protocol designed to preserve the stability of diplomatic engagement. States exercise the right sparingly precisely because diplomacy functions best when it proceeds with mutual respect and careful judgment.
The quiet mechanism of agrément therefore remains one of the least visible yet most consequential features of international diplomacy. It reminds governments that representation abroad carries responsibilities that extend beyond domestic politics or rhetorical contestation. Words spoken in public life may travel far beyond the moment in which they are uttered, and in the careful world of diplomacy they can sometimes shape whether a door quietly opens or remains politely closed. There are signs of palpable gale of rejections in the newly posted ambassadorial nominees by Mr President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.This is however not a sign of confrontation but a call unto individuals who aspire to high offices to conduct their affairs devoid of rhetorics and direct expressions of ideological content that is at variance with international acceptability. Administrations may for reasons best known to them appoint a nominee for an ambassadorial office, omitting the factors of personal conducts and utterances yet to be caught at the gate of the host country and their foreign diplomatic content.
